{"id":3017,"date":"2016-12-02T11:10:03","date_gmt":"2016-12-02T11:10:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wiki.davelevy.info\/?p=3017"},"modified":"2024-11-07T13:22:59","modified_gmt":"2024-11-07T13:22:59","slug":"investigatory-powers-act-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/davelevy.info\/wiki\/investigatory-powers-act-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigatory Powers Act 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Investigatory Powers Bill became Law earlier this week. Interestingly the noise and criticism was turned up after the Royal Assent and a Government Site petition opposing the Law<\/a> reached 1500,000 signatures in a week. I had reason to perform some research on what the Law actually says, and here are my notes and links.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016, full text<\/a> at legislation.gov.uk<\/li>\n
  2. And in .pdf by Neil<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. The Code of Practice, home page<\/a>, the Interception of Communications Code of Practice, text<\/a>. (I think this is it, updated in Oct 2016 at the time I posted).<\/li>\n
  4. House of Commons Briefing Paper: Investigatory Powers Bill Committee Stage Report<\/a>, i.e. the House of Commons Committee stage report.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Also<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Intelligence and Security Committee report on the IPB<\/a><\/li>\n
    2. Written for a conference, a bibliography of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism’s contributions to the debate<\/a><\/li>\n
    3. The Independent Reviewer on (Anti-)Terrorism Legislation’s last words on the IBA, as passed.<\/a><\/li>\n
    4. The Home page of the Independent Reviewer on (Anti-)Terrorism’s evidence to the HOuse of Commons Public Bill Committee<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      I found the following commentary exceptionally useful,<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. E. King and D. Lock, \u2018Investigatory Powers Bill: Key Changes Made by the Lords\u2019, U.K. Const. L. Blog (1st Dec 2016)\/<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        For more<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. The Guardian reports that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal finds GCHQ’s secrecy violates Human Rights Law<\/a>, the IPT declares that the secrecy surrounding the UK & US surveillance regimes was illegal in the UK and Europe. Evidence that the security state, notice how similar it sounds to securitat\u00e9<\/em>, behaved illegally for 7 years. I think we would say in a civil and commercial domain that the compliance department was found to be wanting.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          <\/a><\/p>\n

          Have they mandated backdoors?<\/h3>\n
            \n
          1. The Register exposes the powers of technical notices<\/a> probably based on<\/li>\n
          2. PI exposes the requirement to pre-announce telco products<\/a><\/li>\n
          3. Section 253 as enacted<\/a><\/li>\n
          4. Edward Snowden tweets … <\/a>although his reference seems to be out of date.<\/li>\n
          5. Section 2.2 of the Code of practice defines what a CSP is. It’s a service provider and so can be a software are only provider, think facebook, although most IP service providers have hardware also. (Looks like we need to develop a peer to peer chat server although that will run on vulnerable systems.)<\/li>\n
          6. Section 8.4 of the Code of practice restricts the removal of encryption to technologies they have installed themselves.<\/li>\n
          7. Section 8.31 of the Code of Practice requires CSPs under a technical notice to give prior notice of major changes that might\/will disrupt any previously installed backdoors.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            or is it 8.29
            \n

            This is how @ukhomeoffice<\/a> will compel UK companies to keep your data insecure forever. Serve notice and they the surveillance state. #IPAct<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/7A2VfIOHLV<\/a><\/p>— Jim Killock (@jimkillock) December 10, 2016<\/a><\/blockquote>\r\n